Did Rudy Giuliani's most destructive act take place in 1996?

We hear a lot in recent days about Rudy Giuliani's acts in the end stages of Donald Trump's political career, from his activity in Ukraine that helped lead to Trump's impeachment to his current inept attempts to throw out hundreds of thousands of Democratic votes as Trump refuses to accept his overwhelming loss (in the Electoral College as well as the popular vote) to President-Elect Joe Biden.

But what I've been thinking about today is the action of Mayor Giuliani's that may have done as much as any other to lead Trump to the White House in the first place.

In 1996, the Fox News Channel was started by Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes, with its main studio in New York. However, it was not immediately available in any major television markets, including New York City. There was no internet method of getting video news in 1996, so Fox News was even more invisible than Trump's current favorite online right-wing channel, OANN, to the vast majority of Americans. The only cable provider in NYC was Time Warner, and they said they had a waiting list of 30 other cable stations vying for space and they didn't have room for a nascent cable news channel from the Australian owner of the New York Post.

"It began with a phone call to Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani on Sept. 20 [1996], an entreaty that would soon mire City Hall in a feud between two media conglomerates. On the line was an old friend of the Mayor, Roger Ailes, a former Republican political consultant who is now chairman of the 24-hour news channel started by Rupert Murdoch." --New York Times, November 4, 1996

It could be just that Ailes was an old friend, or that Rudy's second wife, Donna Hanover, was then working at Murdoch's local station, WNYW-5, or that Rudy saw Fox as a national stage for his own presidential ambitions, or that he was unselfishly trying to save a few hundred NYC media jobs for a fledgling cable station, but the fact remains that he went to bat -- hard -- to get Fox News on New York's only cable provider, engaging much of the mayor's office and staff to do so, and he was ultimately successful. 

On a personal level, this has stuck in my head (and craw) because in the same year, 1996, Rudy sold the television station I watched most regularly, the city's PBS station WNYC-31, to a private buyer who immediately stopped showing BBC & PBS programming (he also sold my favorite radio station, WNYC-FM and AM, but those airwaves were bought by a foundation that kept the call letters and they have remained the city's main outlets for National Public Radio content.)

We'll never know if the struggling brainchild of Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes would have survived its infancy if it hadn't been able to move into the New York cable market, but maybe more importantly, we'll never know if tri-state real-estate con man Donald Trump would have become PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP without the Trump/Fox feedback loop that created his political "philosophy" and gave him a similarly-brainwashed audience for his political ambitions. Even though Trump had shown some of his political leanings publicly as early as 1989 when he lobbied heavily for the killing of the (innocent) Central Park Five, he was mainly a tabloid punchline for his marriages and affairs and bankruptcies and real-estate battle with Leona Helmsley; it's hard to imagine Trump becoming TRUMP without Fox News. It's hard to imagine now, but there was a real possibility that Fox News never would have appeared on the television screens in the Trump Tower penthouse without the heavy-handed intervention of Mayor Rudy Giuliani. It may be one of Rudy's greatest crimes.

What America's Voting System(s) Look Like From Abroad.

 The New York Times showed some details of the archaic United States voting system(s) to residents of some of the worlds newer and less baroque (or broken?) voting systems.

Here's the resulting video:

"When we showed voters from around the world what American elections are like in practice, they weren’t impressed. But they were impressed with our resilience and determination. So, while the world’s 'oldest democracy' may be a bit creaky these days, let’s be clear: Go vote! That’s really the best way to make a change."

ONE DAY LEFT!

VOTE!

The Banality of Rosenstein

 

banality noun 

ba·​nal·​i·​ty | \ bə-ˈna-lə-tē , bā- also ba- \ 

plural banalities  

Definition of banality  

1: something that lacks originality, freshness, or novelty : something banal : COMMONPLACE 

2: the quality or state of lacking new or interesting qualities : the quality or state of being banal

Source: Merriam-Webster online dictionary

If you were going to look for an American face or a manner of corporate dress that embodied the words "lacking new or interesting qualities," you would have to search long and hard to find a face and suit more commonplace than Rod Rosenstein's to fit that definition.

Google Image search for "Rod Rosenstein" - 10/7/2020

evil noun 

\ ˈē-vəl , British often and US sometimes ˈē-(ˌ)vil \

Definition of evil

1a: the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing 

  b: a cosmic evil force 

2: something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity

Source: Merriam-Webster

And if one were to ask what the most evil action of the Trump Administration was based on those dictionary definitions, a large percentage of Americans would reply with a description of the actions the Administration took to separate parents from their minor children at our southern border, and the suffering and sorrow those actions brought [since more than 200,000 Americans have died in 2020 from an out-of-control COVID-19 outbreak, there might be competition for the most evil act, so let's assume the questions were asked at the end of 2019].

Both words, and Hannah Arendt's short book, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, immediately came to mind last night as I read the fourth paragraph in a New York Times article about the family separations. It was not totally unexpected that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was quoted as saying "We need to take away children" in the Justice Department Inspector General's report on the separations, but it was the following paragraph that made me think of Arendt's book.

"Rod J. Rosenstein, then the deputy attorney general, went even further in a second call about a week later, telling the five prosecutors that it did not matter how young the children were. He said that government lawyers should not have refused to prosecute two cases simply because the children were barely more than infants."

It's been more than forty years since I read Eichmann in Jerusalem in college, but it has always stuck with me on a very deep level. Evil, real evil, will always need bureaucrats who are simply efficient at doing their jobs, no matter who the boss is. All of us who have worked in the corporate world (I had decades in that environment) have met many potential Eichmanns and Rosensteins who are almost invisible in an office environment, and who would easily and efficiently (if not eagerly) implement or amplify orders without ever questioning the ethics behind them or the effects they might have on other people.

"For when I speak of the banality of evil, I do so only on the strictly factual level, pointing to a phenomenon which stared one in the face at the trial. Eichmann was not Iago and not Macbeth, and nothing would have been farther from his mind than to determine with Richard III 'to prove a villain.' Except for an extraordinary diligence in looking out for his personal advancement, he had no motives at all."

--Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem

 

The October surprises are coming faster than usual this year...

It's entirely on message for this week that it would end with the announcement that the current couple living in the White House have both tested positive for COVID-19 (which will be known in future histories of 2020 as the #TrumpVirus).

Monday morning saw the detailed exposé of Trump's taxes in the print edition The New York Times (released online on Sunday), in which we learned that he paid $750/year in federal income taxes in the years when he wasn't paying absolutely nothing.

Tuesday night saw Trump's self-immolation at the first Presidential debate, a debate that will be remembered for his constant interruptions, his complete lack of empathy for Beau Biden, his mask-free family flouting debate rules, his sweaty orange complexion, and especially for his telling the Proud Boys to "Stand Back and Stand By" when asked if he would denounce those violent white supremacists. 

Wednesday saw the online release of the results of a five-month investigation from the Times' Magazine about the depth and breadth of Trump's "Voter Fraud" lies and how they fit into a continuing GOP project of voter suppression, which now seems to be Trump's only remaining election strategy.

Thursday night saw the release of a recording of First Lady Melania Trump saying "Who gives a fuck about Christmas stuff and decoration" and "they said 'Oh, what about the children that they were separated?' Give me a fucking break." Melania's war on Christmas and refugee children got approximately ten seconds of media attention before the news broke that Trump's closest aide Hope Hicks had tested positive for #TrumpVirus after spending all week traveling in close contact with her boss to the debate and Trump superspreader rallies.

Friday morning we woke up to the news that the POTUS and FLOTUS were positive for the virus named after them, which leads to our True Blue Liberal poll question of the day.

POLL:
Which of these other blockbuster stories of the week is Trump most happy to distract us from with his #TrumpVirus announcement?

— True Blue Liberal - #BidenHarris2020 (@TrueBlueLiberal) October 2, 2020

POLL: Which Trump Crime Family Member Will Be the First to See the Inside of a Jail Cell?

After today's historic front page of The New York Times on the Trump Crime Family's tax returns and financial crimes, it seems clear that somebody connected with the Trump Organization is going to be found guilty of a financial misdeed, but which member of the family will be the first one we see in a perp walk? 

 

POLL:
Which member of the #TrumpCrimeFamily will be the first to see the inside of a jail cell for financial crimes?

— True Blue Liberal - #BidenHarris2020 (@TrueBlueLiberal) September 28, 2020

Our Empathetic POTUS: Who Says that Donald Trump Can't Feel the Pain of Others?

Many people say that Donald J. Trump is incapable of empathizing with anyone other than Donald J. Trump, but there is one exception, men who are accused of sexual assault or harassment. The case of Brett Kavanaugh is not the first case where he seems capable of truly feeling an accused man's pain.

National Anthem Etiquette

Twitter, October 18, 2017

The New York Times, August 5, 1933

Donald Trump, Art Lover

Defender-of-Nazis Donald J. Trump took to Twitter this morning to defend Confederate statues again, typing a string of tweets with an unexpected and completely out-of-character lesson in art history and the appreciation of beauty.

August 17, 2017

June 6, 1980

The first time that Donald Trump's name was linked to beautiful statuary in the news was back on June 6, 1980 when an article about Bonwit Teller on the first page of The New York Times ran with the headline, "Developer Scraps Bonwit Sculptures." Trump's name itself didn't appear until the sixth paragraph about the landmark Fifth Avenue department store that was being razed to make room for a "$100 million 62-story bronze-colored glass tower of apartments, offices, and stores" that we now know by its shorthand name, Trump Tower. Trump had promised the Metropolitan Museum of Art that he would donate two 15-foot-tall Art Deco bas-relief panels by Rene Paul Chambellan if the cost of removing them was not "prohibitive." In the next paragraph, Trump's fictional "vice president of the Trump Organization John Baron" explained, in a voice that sounded very much like Donald Trump's, "the merit of these stones was not great enough to justify the effort to save them." Even though the Met was anxious to add these pieces to their collection and the appraiser consulted by the Times valued them at "several hundred thousand dollars," the unnamed three independent appraisers that "John Baron" cited had valued them at "worth less than $9,000 in resale value" and not worth his estimated $32,000 cost of removal. So the Trump Organization removed the sculptures with jackhammers instead. The Met was interested in acquiring the decorative metal grillwork above the main entrance as well; Trump sold it for its scrap value.

Would Donald Trump or his spokesman "John Baron" have taken more care if the sculptures depicted Robert E. Lee or Nathan Bedford Forrest in "beautiful" equestrian poses?

A Poll About @realDonaldTrump's Tweets Without an Obvious Answer

Trump's tweets from July 1, 2016 at 10:10 AM EDT.

This morning, for the third morning in a row, the official presidential statements in tweet form from the account of @realDonaldTrump have been used to attack "Crazy Joe Scarborough" and "dumb as a rock Mika" Brzezinski; he also threw in shots at NBC, Comcast, and CNN. Over ten percent of his tweets since becoming president have been targeting journalists, aimed at the "failing New York Times" and "Amazon Washington Post" as well as CBS and ABC. They are all, in his opinion, "Fake News," and his supporters are buying it. Only Fox News, Breitbart, Infowars, and The National Enquirer escape the wrath of his little twitterfingers.


So here's the question. With more news breaking every day about the pre-election collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to affect the November results, isn't it in his interest to do everything he can to discredit the messengers who are reporting #TrumpRussia breakthroughs every day?

POLL
Are the non-stop media attacks from @realDonaldTrump the rantings of an elderly TV addict or a conscious attempt to kill the messenger?

— True Blue Liberal (@TrueBlueLiberal) July 1, 2017

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Saturday Evening Update:
The Tweeter In Chief ended this day the same way he started it, while also adding the phrase "Modern Day Presidential" to the language.

Trump's Tweets from 7/1/2017 captured at 8:30PM EDT.

If you don't want Donald Trump to attack you, just say the magic words, "Hail Trump!"

On Saturday night, at the Ronald Reagan Building in the heart of the District of Columbia, this meeting of alt-right Trump supporters from the National Policy Institute took place, making it clear that alt=neo and right=Nazi, even lapsing into German and Sieg Heil salutes in case that formula wasn't previously apparent.



The duty of President-Elect Donald Trump would seem to be obvious -- offer a clear, complete, specific, and immediate repudiation of these supporters, but I guess we shouldn't be surprised that he had more important things on his mind during this weekend of his busy transition period.

On Saturday and Sunday mornings, the most important thing for @realDonaldTrump to tweet about was the fact that the Vice-President-Elect had been booed by some of the audience at Hamilton on Friday night and the cast had given a short post-show speech. The man who famously never apologizes predictably whined for an apology in three consecutive tweets over two days.

After venting about the need for precious snowflake VP Elects to have safe and special spaces, you would think he would have time to give one half-assed short Twitter rebuttal of his neo-Nazi fanboys, but he was distracted by another cultural atrocity on Saturday night, Saturday Night Live.

There's nothing surprising about Donald Trump's thin skin, but there is so much wrong with this SNL tweet: 1) Republicans are supposed to be as opposed to the equal time Fairness Doctrine as they are to Safe Spaces; 2) Equal Time is not really a consideration once the election is over; and 3) Donald Trump was literally THE HOST of Saturday Night Live on November 7, 2015. We have a President Elect who has no understanding of, or respect for, the First Amendment.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UPDATE 11/22 at 8am:
The stubby little Twitter fingers of @realDonaldTrump still haven't addressed the Nazis speaking in his name, but he did roll off the wrong side of the bed early this morning and took three more shots at the nation's one essential newspaper, The New York Times.

One Thing We Can Do Today.

I had a plan for this morning. Though I'm a digital subscriber to The New York Times, I was going to run out early and buy a print copy of today's paper with its headline about America's first woman president. I was going to put it away with these copies from 2008 for my one-year-old granddaughter.

Yes, We Did.

I have no desire to buy (or even see) a print copy of the Times this morning, but I have another plan. I want anyone who reads this to think about subscribing to the Times or the Washington Post, or your local newspaper that probably endorsed Hillary Clinton along with every major print publication in the nation.  In many ways, last night's result was a victory of the illiterate reality-television world over the world of printed words. Subscribe to the Times if only to prove the man wrong who unfailingly and gleefully refers to this essential national publication as the "failing @NYTimes" whenever he tweets about it.

The failing @nytimes reporters don't even call us anymore, they just write whatever they want to write, making up sources along the way!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 15, 2016

I don't work for the Times or the Washington Post or any other newspaper, but I consider subscribing to at least one paper as a civic duty of anyone concerned about the First Amendment. Think about it as a non-deductible charitable contribution if you need to. Think about it the same way you think about contributing to your local PBS or NPR station. We need them all all the time, but we will need them all even more over the next four years.

It's Time for Liberals to Be Politically Incorrect and State the Obvious: 2016 Is a Contest Against Stupid People

This week the grizzled elderly sage of spaghetti westerns Clint Eastwood told us that we Americans (especially young Americans and liberal Americans) were too politically correct. I'm inclined to agree to a degree; it's time to call idiots by their name and declare war on idiocy.



It's been obvious for quite a while that any Republican or independent conservative who was able to string a series of grammatically-correct sentences together to form a coherent paragraph was going to reject the candidacy of Donald Trump.

In January, the National Review dedicated an entire "Against Trump" issue to the candidate they described in their lead editorial as "a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones." In June, television's most prominent intellectual conservative commentator, George Will, officially left the GOP saying "This is not my party." He asked for Republicans to defeat Trump and "grit their teeth" through the Clinton presidency and wait for 2020 (Trump's response has been to describe Will with two of the favorite words from his extremely-limited vocabulary: 'Dummy!' and 'Boring!'). The New York Times' most prominent right-of-center voice has been appalled all year by Trumpism, and David Brooks' column today is no exception, telling Trump's Republican enablers that it's time to get off the fence about their support for him: "There comes a time when neutrality and laying low become dishonorable. If you’re not in revolt, you’re in cahoots. When this period and your name are mentioned, decades hence, your grandkids will look away in shame."

Yesterday news broke about the most obvious revolt of intelligent Republicans against their party's choice for president. The Harvard Republican Club, the oldest group of college Republicans, will not endorse the GOP nominee for the first time in their 128-year-long history. Their statement is worth reading in full, but almost any random paragraph from it contains more common sense than you'll see in hours of commentary from the cable-news experts.

Donald Trump, despite spending more than a year on the campaign trail, has either refused or been unable to educate himself on issues that matter most to Americans like us. He speaks only in platitudes, about greatness, success, and winning. Time and time again, Trump has demonstrated his complete lack of knowledge on critical matters, meandering from position to position over the course of the election. When confronted about these frequent reversals, Trump lies in a manner more brazen and shameless than anything politics has ever seen.

Donald Trump is a threat to the survival of the Republic. His authoritarian tendencies and flirtations with fascism are unparalleled in the history of our democracy. He hopes to divide us by race, by class, and by religion, instilling enough fear and anxiety to propel himself to the White House. He is looking to to pit neighbor against neighbor, friend against friend, American against American. We will not stand for this vitriolic rhetoric that is poisoning our country and our children.

This wasn't just a statement by a single person at the top of the organization. According to the Harvard Crimson article about the decision, 10% of the members support Trump, 10% were undecided, and 80% indicated they would not support him. Let that sink in; that's 80% of the nation's oldest group of college Republicans refusing to support the Republican candidate for president.

So who are the idiots who are supporting Trumpism? The New York Times showed us that this week as well (using language in the following video that the Times would never allow as Fit To Print in the pages of the paper):

The Trump Quote of the Weekend

In the flood of hateful idiocy and untruths coming from Donald Trump's mouth over the weekend, it was hard to zero in on the blackest kernel, until I saw this tweet in my timeline just now.

In email statement, Trump keeps insisting he was wronged by Khizr Khan. No walkback of comments on Ghazala Khan > pic.twitter.com/hgcJWG1LOx

— Alex Burns (@alexburnsNYT) July 31, 2016

Doesn't saying Khizr Khan "has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution" prove that Donald Trump has never read the Consitution?


(But if that phrase isn't enough to prove he's no constitutional scholar, there's also the fact that he told Republicans in Congress that he wanted to protect Article XII of the [seven-article] Constitution.)

I want to become a falconer...

...just so I can train my hawk to take out drones:

More than a "Protest Vote"

Ben Shahn's classic McCarthy poster.

The following quotation appeared yesterday in a New York Times piece from Patrick Healy, "Bernie Sanders Can Take Heart From a Broadway Champ."

“Like Eugene McCarthy in 1968, Sanders will offer a way to cast a protest vote in a primary against Hillary Clinton, but I don’t expect him to register much support beyond that.” 

-- Douglas E. Schoen, Democratic Strategist 

A look at the Schoen Consulting website shows that Douglas Schoen has worked for US politicians, including both Clintons, Mike Bloomberg, Jon Corzine, and Evan Bayh; US corporations, including Walmart, P&G, and AT&T; and international politicians Tony Blair, Silvio Berlusconi, and three Israeli Prime Ministers. In other words, he's as Establishment as they come and his thoughts are representative of the "common knowledge" and "conventional wisdom" of the power elites. He's also wrong.

If you look at the support Eugene McCarthy got in 1968, he was far from being a fringe figure or a mere "protest vote." Peace-candidate McCarthy was not expected to do well against Lyndon Johnson in the first primary in New Hampshire, but his strong 42% second-place showing against the sitting President was at least one of the factors that led to LBJ's withdrawal (and RFK's entry into the race). McCarthy won the most popular votes in the 1968 primaries, but it was a time when party machines were able to give the nomination to the candidate who had received the fewest votes, LBJ's VP Hubert Humphrey, who had concentrated on the wheelers and dealers in non-primary states rather than attracting primary voters. There was a reason there was chaos in the streets outside the Democratic convention.

"...you learn really how strong the Establishment is, not just the political Establishment, but the business Establishment...the business community and the political institutions are all geared to the Establishment, and when they're really tested they're all militarist..." 

--Eugene McCarthy (at the 2-minute mark in the video) 

I felt I needed to capitalize "Establishment" when transcribing the quote pulled from the video, because that's the way we thought of that word at the time. It's a word that would serve the Bernie 2016 campaign well (I'm sure it's a word Bernie Sanders used very freely in his political past).

This is what a nation looks like before American bombs fall.

Meet some of the people whom John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Dick "Dick" Cheney, Bibi Netanyahu, et al. would like to bomb in our name as soon as possible:

I want to travel to Tehran just to have the psychic parakeet at the 3'50" mark of this video tell me my future.

If Bush and Cheney are ever brought to justice ...

OK. Please stop laughing, BUT IF George Bush and Dick Cheney are ever brought to justice for war crimes generally, and specifically for the illegal and unjustified destruction of Iraq, then this article in The New York Times today, "Claims Against Saudis Cast New Light on Secret Pages of 9/11 Report," should play at least some role in their prosecution. If they really were classifying parts of the 9/11 commission report in December 2002 that showed actual links to Saudi officials while still ginning up fictional ties between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein to begin their war, then this piece of evidence shouldn't be forgotten at their trial (again, please stop laughing).

This issue isn't even new, as shown by this exchange between Dick Cheney and Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press" on September 14, 2003, when we were only six months into our never-ending war along the Tigris and Euphrates. Cheney was still trotting out discredited Iraqi links and there were already rumors about the Saudi government connections contained in the suppressed sections of the 9/11 Report:

Dick Cheney: ... With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.

Tim Russert: We could establish a direct link between the hijackers of September 11 and Saudi Arabia.

Cheney: We know that many of the attackers were Saudi. There was also an Egyptian in the bunch. It doesn’t mean those governments had anything to do with that attack. That’s a different proposition than saying the Iraqi government and the Iraqi intelligent service has a relationship with al-Qaeda that developed throughout the decade of the ’90s. That was clearly official policy.

Russert: There are reports that the investigation Congress did does show a link between the Saudi government and the hijackers but that it will not be released to the public.

Cheney: I don’t know want to speculate on that, Tim, partly because I was involved in reviewing those pages. It was the judgment of our senior intelligence officials, both CIA and FBI that that material needed to remain classified. ..."

The shorter version? It's perfectly fine if the fictional Czech story of the Iraqi link is somehow "public out there" (with no help from Bush and Cheney, obviously), but the true Saudi link needs to be kept from the public.

Now for the happy musical outro courtesy of Michael Moore and REM who put all of this into a 2004 movie:

Sarah Palin & Donald Trump must be pissed at The New York Times (again)

In this chart on the Times website today, those pointy-headed eastern liberals list the following twelve potential candidates as expected to compete for places on the stage of the 2016 GOP Clown Circus: Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, and Ben Carson.
No Donald?
No Sarah?
How can they not take this woman seriously as a candidate for the clown college?

As Long As We're All Writing About Presidents and Golf: "...now watch this drive..."

Earlier this week Maureen Dowd accidentally hit send on "The Golf Address," possibly the worst piece of prose ever to appear on the Op/Ed pages of The New York Times. However, she was only the latest in a long line of pundits and ideologues since 2009 who have been condemning President Obama for taking time to play the traditional sport of upper-middle-class white Anglo-Saxon businesscriminals when he should have been chaining himself to his desk.

Only Eisenhowers, Nixons, Fords, Clintons, and Bushes are allowed time on the links while serving as President. Starting in 2017, President (and golf course impresario) Trump will certainly benefit from the fresh air as he solves all the problems left behind by the current administration while hitting little white balls.

Now watch this drive:

A Day to Remember Ernest Gruening and Wayne Morse

On this fiftieth anniversary of the passing of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that pulled us deeper into Vietnam on false pretenses, I wasn't happy to turn on my computer at lunchtime to see this updated headline about Iraq on The New York Times' homepage:

"U.S. Weighs Iraq Airstrikes, Citing Crisis" The New York Times, 8/7/2014 at 1pm EDT

On August 7, 1964, the House voted unanimously and the Senate voted with only two exceptions to give President Johnson the authority to "take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force" in Vietnam after an incident between American warships and North Vietnamese patrol boats in the Gulf of Tonkin that turned out to be not at all what it was presented to be when Johnson and McNamara explained it to the press, the Congress, and the American people.

Members of Congress and the American people should always remember when they read a bellicose headline or watch a speech from a Secretary of Defense or State with professional-looking maps, that only two members of Congress took a correct action 50 years ago today.

All Vietnam is not worth the life of an American boy...
— Alaska Senator Ernest Gruening, August 1964

I believe that history will record this resolution as a historic mistake. I am not going to go along with this kind of program, in South Vietnam … that in my judgment is going to kill needlessly untold numbers of American boys, and for nothing.
— Oregon Senator Wayne Morse, August 1964

If you want more details of the event itself, click here for the the Gulf of Tonkin excerpt from Daniel Ellsberg's Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers.